Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Review

Just Posted: Our review of the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS. Canon's latest superzoom, the SX50, features a 24-1200mm (equivalent) lens and a feature set that compares well to its competition, in what is now one of the most competitive segments of the compact camera market. Specifications include a 12MP CMOS sensor, 2.8" fully-articulated LCD screen, Raw capture and full manual control. Is this the travel camera enthusiasts have been waiting for? Read our review - created in collaboration with Jeff Keller of The Digital Camera Resource Page - to find out.

Comments

I bought the SX on an "emergency basis" (I'm a NIKON guy, after all) at a Walmart in Olympia, Wa. I forgot to bring my P-510 to shoot the "great Pumpkin" (an enclosed 7X12 cargo trailer) that I was taking delivery of the next day.

It was "0'dark 30" when I left the store; and as I was walking back to the Van in the very dimly lit parking lot, I began taking pictures. YIKES !!! Where did all this "light" come from? Talk about "low light sensitivity" - I'd like to see the "lowly" SX 50 in a low light compitition with the Df or D4s.

The image quality is acceptable - pretty darn sharp at the "wide end", and "friendly fuzzy" when racked-out ( the P 510 is sharper at that end).

Not only can I take low level horizontal shots using the LCD swivel screen, I can do the same with vertical shots without sticking my face in the grass - an impossible task with the P 510.

I was going to get a Nikon D3100 as my first camera for my new interest, but after doing a lot of research and decision making and a good deal. I chose the the Canon sx50 hs, currently taking picks now and I really like the quality.

I am very interested in capturing moving object (High Speed Photography), can anyone tell me how to set the camera to get the moving shots I want?

Once upon a time I was the proud owner of the S3IS... Since then, I went the DSLR "way", owning various APS-C & FF camera bodies from Canon. Now, I was curious about the 50X "performance", because as I do not make money from photography, a (=THE) 1200 mm lens is out of scope - otherwise my wife will prepare an IED or equivalent. Just one opinion: at the "perceived quality" level, the SX50 looks... cheap (well, at least compared with the G series). It seems that indeed Canon is doing some hard "cost cutting" work. For the rest, however, I was impressed - and I will certainly buy one, just for the fun to have access to that amazing zoom range... as per the IQ, you cannot have the 5DIII quality here, right? :) Cheers! :)

You can get close to the same quality, depending on how you use the camera. Don't zoom all the way and keep ISO low. Using auto ISO on the SX 50 HS is a bad idea. Unfortunately the noise level above 400 is simply not good enough for a quality. shot. For crystal clear shots I suggest the following.

1) Don't zoom past 400mm

2)Use a high quality tripod.

3) Force ISO to 80 and manually adjust speed and aperture.

Take a look at http://www.viewbug.com/member/Bullterriere and compare my SX 50 shots of the seagull and the other bird to shots taken with MK iii using a top quality L lens.

I bought the SX 50 because of its long focal lens and the CHDK.In the past I have done some nice timelapse with my S100 and some realy good night shots. Things you only can do with compact Canons. And the SX 50 is one of the best!

I am also on the side of 'please review more cameras like this'. However, I feel like this review fails to capture the only reason people would buy this camera - the long reach. I think there are ways to address this - maybe shots from a tall place of a faraway landmark, for example. Or birds, or you could take all the superzooms on African safari.... I just feel like this review misses the essence of superzooms. Showing me how it performs at 85mm equiv. just doesn't really help much.

Another "giant leap for mankind" in conquering cyber-space! The software "art" filter TOY CAMERA got its own hardwarization! You can, Canon! (I am not so rich to buy these cheap plastic things, so I have to turn the "art" filter on to simulate this IQ - if I really want).

Great zoom range but pretty disappointing aperture. With a max F3.4 you can't do pretty much anything in low light. That's why people move on to larger sensor cameras, I've tried once to take fast action pics in low light with a similar Canon zoom, how clueless I was, you can do nothing with it.

With so many generations of cams and in 2013, you'd guess they at least be at F1.8, ideally at F1.4 or better. With such small and noisy sensors these cameras are useless and the slow lens doesn't make it better.

Faster lenses in compacts/small sensor cameras should be next hot thing brands should be competing for.

Given the present state of the art, large-aperture zooms are expensive and heavy. Canon's f/1.7–f/3.0 60x zoom for small sensor (2/3") cameras weighs almost 20kg and costs nearly $100,000 (search B&H for "DIGISUPER 60").

Although it's silly to compare a compact superzoom camera to a broadcast lens, "fast and long" nevertheless implies a large entrance pupil (e.g., 215mm/1.4 ~= 154mm for a "1200mm equivalent" f/1.4 for the SX50 sensor), so seemingly difficult to design into a "compact" camera at any price.

You're right but obviously that glass is of better quality than a superzoom one. If any camera maker can make folded zooms, Sony translucent mirrors, some hybrid AF, etc, why can't they work on faster lenses?

I mean the generation before this camera had a an F2.7 lens, why step back almost a full stop with an F3.4? Probably this generation should have been an F2.

What I'm saying is that I'm sure there are ways to design faster lenses for compacts but there is not an interesting to do that in the first place 'cause mostly everyone overlooks that. They're squeezing 20X zooms in little compacts. If there was an interest in developing that technology, it wouldn't be so hard to have compacts with lenses like that. As it isn't hard to watch a cinema 35mm sized sensor in a DSLR.

Dear Webmaster of DPR,I would really appreciate it if I could at least have the option to skip this silly page and go directly form the News page or emails that I receive, to the actual test or article and skip this page entirely. It wastes my time and your resources - please think about adding a direct link button or something, pretty please.

I agree that the final score seems a little low. Hand-holdable 50x is a fairly amazing stand-out groundbreaking feat. With the zoom and a better sensor than the FZ200, I'd think the scores would be a bit closer. I'm not suprised by all the complaining here.

Thank you dpreview and Jeff Kellar for this review. To those of you who scoff at dp for such reviews, may I remind them that many of us could be new to photography or buying a second camera, and still trying to decide what sort of camera we want...and need...and can afford. I guess you were all in that position at one time or other.

I personally come to dpreview because I feel their reviews are very professional. I am very much a beginner...with birding as my main hobby...and slowly getting into photography. The SX50, I've decided - with it's reach and pretty good IQ and other positives - sounds perfect for me.

My next/second camera for pure photography? Who knows, maybe a dslr, maybe a mirrorless, maybe a compact...whatever my needs, my expertise, and/or my budget, dpreview will help me decide. So please keep up the good work DPR and a sincere big thanks from me.

For birding, you might want to consider the Panasonic FZ200. The faster aperture will help with moving subjects, at the expense of some reach.

EDIT: The reason is that for a (fast) moving subject, you generally want a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster. For a stationary subject, you can use slow shutter speeds, as long as you have a tripod. Birds are "in-betweenish" to me. They are not stationary, but they often are not moving too fast when they are feeding, etc. You don't need 1/250 of a second all the time, but you do want as fast a shutter speed as you can get. With every stop in aperture you lose, you lose half your shutter speed. I think that this camera and the FZ200 are at least a stop apart at 600mm equivalent, which means that shutter speed of 1/200 on the FZ200 would slow down to 1/100 on this camera. That's roughly the idea, though my numbers are not exact.

Thanks bobbarber - it's also thanks to comments like yours that guys like me can learn more about photography and get into a focused decision-taking process.

For the reasons you mentioned (and some other less important ones) I actually came and went so many times between the FZ200 and the SX50...but the extra reach won the day especially because I felt I could afford the slower lens since where I come from (and where I do most of my birding) the days are usually bright and sunny.

I must admit that my ideal bridge would be a combination of the sx50 and the fz200 plus the manual zoom of the Fujifilm XS-1. Maybe one day...

I tell it open: Canon recycles cheap electronic garbage coming from the previous millennium. To disguise this fact Canon raise one parameter to absurd value to get a record echo. Once upon a time - I loved you Canon.

I bought the SX50 because my daughter allready got the SX40 and I was surprised by IQ, its excellent zoom, its impressive stabilization (but with some difficulties to keep the subject in the viewfinder at full zoom) good exposition, nice colours... and particularly the ease of obtaining nice pictures compared to my Pentax K-x...And The SX50 is equal or superior to the SX40 in all domains.See previous post !Jean-Marc From NormandySee my moon shot in my gallery ; in this case I used a tripod !

The SX50 is equal or superior to the SX40 in all domains :- same IQ- more powerful zoom (with a much better quality than the FZ200 as seen in some forum comparisons) and much easier to use than the SX40- Excellent stabilization : it is currently possible to shoot at full zoom at 1/40s without tripod- the possibility to shoot raw what I use currently since DPP delivers clearly better results than jpeg (more details, less noise) (I have read in a forum that FZ200 Raw files are not so easy to process since Raw images are noisier, cameralabs review)So, I don't understand the DPR conclusions. It seems to me that the SX50 is underestimated. I agree that the lens is slow but the SX50 qualities are so high... In the past, DPR tested the stabilization efficiency. Why no longer ? This is a major parameter because this is the a necessary condition to obtain nice pictures in the real life !So, in conclusion... I love my SX50 ! and I think that DPR has not made a so good job here !

If the quality comparisons to FZ200 were not made at the same f-stop, they are hardly relevant. Faster lenses are more difficult to make sharp at wide open, but the quality will usually improve by stopping down. Every photographer used to know this, but the high quality DSLR lenses of the past decade has "spoiled" the expectations of many.

I think the main reason why DPR no longer tests stabilization efficiency is that DCR, which makes the bulk of these collaboration reviews, does not do that on their own and DPR don't want to dedicate the additional resources and time for their own testing.

"While having all that telephoto power sounds appealing, keep in mind that you'll need to either use a tripod or crank up the ISO a bit in order to get a sharp photo at full telephoto"

This statement in the conclusion is deeply misleading. I bought this camera, (and returned it for some handling issues), but this is mostly false based on my experience with it. I could post plenty of handheld full telephoto shots at low enough ISO (<=400) taken outdoors in moderate daylight. Not a problem. Indoors or low light, yes this is probably true, but for example for wildlife photo buffs shooting in normal daylight, this is not true. The IS is fantastic on this camera.Not noted in the review is that the high speed burst mode (13 fps) is completely blind. All displays (viewfinder/lcd) are black during this. This is why I didn't keep the camera, but I found IQ, as the review notes, and IS to be very good.

no doubt 'super-zooms' wiill never compete with 'prosumer bridge' dcams (PowerShot G is Flagship Canon prosumer, not the SX), but super-zooms remain the pinnacle of pushing BOTH small sensor tech and wide-to-long lenses... i'm happy to see each next gen are better both areas than previous

now all Canon has to do is stop stalling on offering a '24' WA FoV on their PowerShot G series... '28' just doesn't meet my needs

already have their EF24 f1.4L II and TS-E24 f3.5L II for my FF 5DMkII dSLR... what more do they expect... restrict me from having a suitable 'carry around' PowerShot G lacking the '24'???

This 12mp camera makes images that are sharper and cleaner than the ones with more photo detectors. It goes to show you how pointless it is stuffing more pixels on these pin head sized sensors. Yet, there will be more P&S models released with 16+ MP sensors. Bummer.

I cannot more agree with Elaka Famor. I thiink that review wrote member of the DSLR club, which know nothing about problems compact camera users.It's obviopus to me that reviewers of this portal clearly thinks, that what is downside DSLR cameras was a downside compact camera too.

I bought lately this camera and I think that is one of the top compact cameras with functionality and quality pictures of the DSLR cameras.

Personally, for this review I wlill fired reviewer and hired reviewer which knows only compact cameras. One more this type review and reward you publicly IQ Stupidity.

I congratulate DPR for this review since the quality of analyse is very good and usefull. What I mean, there are cameras that are mostly tools than ways to express myself artisticly. IQ or DR are not so important for me than to have the images because my camera is light and versatile so I will carry it all the time. My need for bridge camera is different of other photographers because this is like a pen to help me taking note of what I saw in the wilderness or in my vicinity. Specifically, I am a birder so I use Canon SX40 HS for identify birds or to make video clip of behaviors that I share with fellows in the web. So it is good to have reviews of quality about a growing market and many readers expect to know more about this kind of cameras.

so much fail in this post. i despair of those for whom review sites become the be all and end all (and highly subjective ones with questionable metrics at that) DXOMark ... meh !

apart from that your comparison is totally flawed, you are comparing a DSLR with a SuperZoom. I suppose it serves your petty argument though. Maybe, instead of obsessing about some abstract metrics, you could take a look at the images from this camera. There are some great examples of its capabilities on Flickr. Photography would be much better off without this sort of unhelpful statistical obsession, thanks all the same.

DxoM has sound physics, math and engineering background. If your math is as good - go ahead with criticism - otherwise...

What I compare is picturequality, we dont talk content here and if this new camera is up to par to a design that is 7 years old - which it clearly is not - it is a lot worse than this old design.

It is just a fact that a 7 year old D50 is better than the brand new Canon p&s by a comfortable margin.

I think you prefer marketing over fact. That is called faithbased and has not much merit with us factbased guys. This stuff you like is bad engineering to cheapen things, mediocre cheap lenses and a huge amount of incamere software processing, overpriced junk - and - just does not turn out decent pictures and this is the bottom line we both can agree.

wakaba, I hate to use this analogy <cringing> but you're....comparing....apples and....ORANGES! There, I said it. A seven year old D50 has a sensor -- please stop me if I'm being condescending and telling you something you already know -- that is MUCH larger than the SX50 and half the pixels, which means the pixels are freaking huge by comparison. Not only that, it's a DSLR with some high quality glass attached. Back in the day that D50 was $900 with a crappy lens, and a whole lot more with a good lens. Not only that, superzoom cameras do compromise on image quality to some extent to get the reach and we all know that. Why don't you find a 50X zoom lens for the D50 and then start doing a side-by-side for us. Good luck and I hope you win the lottery to afford that.

So an inexpensive consumer superzoom can compete with a dslr of seven years ago. Good job, SX50 engineers! Oh, that's not the conclusion you were looking for? I'm sorry I couldn't follow your foolish comparison to its irrational conclusion. This new camera costs far less and includes a 1200mm lens, yet gives images with similar IQ, despite its tiny sensor. That's real progress. The SX50 is an excellent tool for people who need it, especially wildlife photographers. I don't want one, but I'm impressed by it's abilities.

Canongroupies: If it cant beat an age old D50. The Canon is clearly worse. Pricepoint of the Nikon kit $480 in 2005. So yes it is comparable.

There are no 50x zooms - nomenclatura is 150mm, 200mm and so on. 50x is interpolating pixels, a nice way to say the camera adds pixels were there are none. the more x`s - the more pixels are added. Its Fisherprice...fgs.

This has been taken with a 7 year old D50 and Nikon/Cosinakitcraplens by an 11 year old girl - 2 weeks ago:

wakaba, do you really not understand that your comparison does not make much sense? Let me try to make it clear:Someone who needs a lightweight zoom with very long reach will always pick a super zoom. The larger sensor of a DSLR is useles to him. So the SX50 is a fine choice WITHIN its class

Btw, I wouldn't expect a tiny 1/2.3" sensor to outperform an APS-C sensor, even an older one. At least not when it comes to High ISO noise performance, where sensor size matters more than pixel technology.

This review was NOT done at the expense of reviewing any other camera. It's not like this will create any delay in reviewing some DSLR you want to see reviewed.

The review was largely written by Jeff Kellar. Jeff has always been great at writing quick reviews of P&S cameras. He's got it down to a science. Dpreview has some sort of arrangement with Jeff where they take his basic review, transfer it into their own format and then publish it.

Everyone wins this way.

Dpreview gets to print reviews for cameras they would otherwise not be reviewing, the Dpreview members get to read these reviews, and hopefully... Jeff gets paid something. If Dpreview didn't do this this we would get fewer reviews of P&S cameras, and many of the members here have a strong interest in these cameras.

Jeff will not be writing the review for the Canon 6D. That will most likely be done by Amadou, Richard, Barnaby, Andy or Lars, or maybe a combination of them.

Barney.... that really is good news. Jeff is an exceptionally good camera reviewer. He combines technical measurements with lots of very practical insights about ergonomics and real world use of a camera. I always felt he did an outstanding job reviewing cameras.

Actually, Seattle is one step short of having a tap placed in every home for coffee dispensing...maybe a second for espresso. Hey, DPReview guys, if you're hiring I'm not a bad barista and I've been reading your reviews since 2001. I can turn a phrase or two, too. :)

I think a lot of people are underestimating the importance of this kind of camera. Its true that right now, 'one size doesn't fit all', but in the future the versatility of something like this could well make most other cameras either specialist items, or obsolete. The variety of images possible and their already reasonable quality should really make manufacturers take note. A 'killer' bridge cam could well take off like no other camera before it.

I think DP is losing the plot. Still no G5 review for eg, yet we get a review of what is a rather uninteresting camera so soon after its release.. The priorities of this site are hard to fathom these days. It certainly doesn't seem that detailed reviews of interesting and innovative cameras are high on the list unfortunately.

@ Dave - we added a full set of studio comparisons, all of our own product photography, radically restructured the content, added more than half as many images to the real-world samples gallery, and a standard, dynamically-comparable dpreview score. To claim that this review was 'lifted' is in your words, disingenuous to say the least...

Having spent much time deliberating between a bridge camera and a real camera, I went for an NEX, because although you pay (depending on the model and deal at the time) £100 to £200 more, you get vastly superior IQ and low noise in low light. These superzooms are versatile and good value, but hopeless at 'all conditions' photography. Without a tripod, nightshots are a big no no for a start.

Sensor imrpovement is general rule, applying not only on 1/2,3" sensors. I agree that according to comparison scene the outcome from SX50 looks surprisingly good and I cannot tell the difference between this and (e.g.) the FZ200; 1/1,7" sensors do not offer much better pictures either. However I believe it is the real life where the difference shows up: then the lens speed plays part - f2,8 of FZ200 vs. f6,5 of SX50 means difference of ISO400 vs. ISO2000, which means usable picture vs. unusable mess.

"Noise becomes pretty intense at ISO 800 and beyond", it's somehow weird to see that kind of critics over a sensor that practically step better than FZ200's one (check RAWs in lab test) but see no word about average high ISO performance in Panny review

Odd isn't it. The SX50 has been out 5 mins and there's a full review. Entirely predictable results on IQ when a manufacturer goes for a headlining focal length far longer than anyone could hold steady. Nothing against Canon - had dSLRs and S1 / S3 IS. However, when can we expect / what happened to the full review of the FZ200?

The weakest link in these top superzoom models is clearly the small sensor. Luckily sensors are still improving, by quite a lot each year in fact, e.g. the OMD (E-PM2) sensor, the RX100 sensor, the X-Tran sensor, and there are better sensors also from Canon. Yet, Canon decided to just use the same sensor as in the old SX40.

Canon do have some new sensors, e.g. 6D and 650Dm, but the improvement in them over their older sensors are minimal, and it is true when compared with others' new sensors, Canon sensors seem about 2 generations generations behind. They need to decide quickly whether to use Sony or some other sensors, before even those who blindly follow big brand names notice the wide performance gap.

Mmm, no, this is almost certainly a Canon sensor. The technology of their larger sensors has been lagging, but their small sensors are excellent. They are made in different plants using different technology.

Great to see a Jeff Keller review. I will really miss Dcresource. Reviews short enough to read but still including things not covered by other review sites. I particular the ideas that high iso performance depends on the lighting.

Its not that useful to know a camera will create great result at iso 3200 under bright lights as in reality you won't be using iso 3200 under bright lights

Zinedi why do you think you know more about sensor design than those who do it for a living? Why do you repeat tired internet theory that never agrees with reality. I can think of 2 examples where where more pixels has meant more noise. In every other case it means less noise.

This may be a poor camera, I've no idea, but lets try and be accurate in our basic understanding

Take a look at Michael Reichmann's review of the SX50 on Luminous Landscape Too. According to him "This camera is quite capable of taking quite acceptable images up to 800 and at all focal lengths, even the widest and longest".

".. where more pixels has meant more noise. In every other case it means less noise."I am not interested in numbers (whether they mean zoom reach or noise level) without direct and relevant feed-back to image quality. All these new "less noisy" tiny sensors (and "corrected" lenses too) are examples of the victory of software over hardware, money over technology (software is allways cheaper than good hardware). The result of these sw-made "noise-free" images is detail-free plasticky virtual reality.

The term "quite acceptable" (it means whatever one wants to imagine) is a victory of diplomacy and emptiness over the raw reality.

I'm surprised at the vitrol over the attention this camera is getting, but think for a moment. Is there any ither realistic way to get such a large zoom range than use a small sensor? I just got a Nikon P510 for birding and am finding the range fascinating for other uses too, though I'll admit, it, like this is a 'good light' camera and not an 'low light' camera.

I dismissed these bridge cameras too, but in use they are a liberating experience.

As I read the news about this camera (and its future competitors) a few thoughts came to mind.This won't be replacing my DSLR gear, but it may well be the ultimate image-stabilized, autofocusing, picture and video capable small telescope (50x optically, 200x digitally).I'll probably wait a bit for the dust to settle and for its competitors to come out, and then I may well get one for that purpose: extreme magnification with side benefits.

Oh good, the first camera review of the new year, after 2 weeks, is another recycled Jeff-review. Can't wait for him to start here as there are so many new cameras that are actually exciting waiting to be reviewed.

I've never considered a super-zoom bridge camera, although the Panasonic FZ200 is of moderate interest because of the lens, and the good video quality. I'd rather save for a proper telephoto prime for my DSLR to get more than just reach, but superb IQ and reach.

Why not. If people want it, make it. Props to Canon for doing a good job.

Still though, looking at image 2391783, where plants on the cliff face have been blurred by the NR circuitry to a 1 cm square, 10,000 pixel solid green blob on my monitor, and checking that the ISO is set at 80... I get depressed. I can't help myself.

I'm wondering that. Wouldn't this be the most apt comparison, as they both have such a long zoom range? Presumably, the Panasonic can only have such a bright lens because it's around have the length. Also, the P510 got a silver award but this didn't, is this just because of a changed environment, or is it still considered the better camera here?

Overall a fine/fair review, but can't agree that a tripod almost is a necessity when shooting at full zoom. The IS is so effective that you most often will get sharp images (of at steady subject) at 1/125 sec or so at 1200mm (equivalent), or even at even slower shutterspeeds with a bit of luck. So in good light it's perfectly possible to shoot handheld at base ISO at full zoom.

You don't think a tripod is needed for a 1200mm lens? At 300mm I'm already thinking tripod on most cameras. And the problem is that bright sun doesn't make for very interesting images, usually. What's worse is the lens on this camera is pretty slow at f6.5 at full telephoto.

But honestly, I don't know why some people seem adverse to carrying tripods. My Benro Travel Angel is around 3.8 lbs (1.7 kg) and it's worth the minor effort to bring it with me. It means I can shoot base ISO at any aperture that the subject requires. One hears tripods talked about like going to the dentist, as if they were some burdensome photography accessory that are best avoided like the plague. If you spend this much time and money to get high quality images, isn't it worth it to use a tripod whenever possible?

If you shoot moving subjects much a tripod even with a fluid head isn't very much help and also if you go many places were tripods are banned tripods can be completely useless. Tripods are a pain to carry and slow to set up as well, causing many missed shots. And I have 7 of them!

On one hand I agree that it is not easy to shoot at long focal lenghts hand-held and with my 55-300mm I see the pictures are not sharp enough at 300mm; so I do think a tripod is a must for sharp pictures at 300mm+. However looking at pictures I took with 300 mm there are mostly animals that were not waiting for me to set a tripod; they just run away.